1) Brexit was voted 7 months before the Trump inauguration so it's off topice Also, I'm not sure Brexit would have won after said inauguration, considering the worldwide backslash against xenophobia and populism your election cycle created.2) Brexit means a weaker a more divided UK. It sure means a more unified EU (there is no possible debate about that). And if you ask me, it will on the long term mean a much, much stronger EU too. The UK has been destroying EU from the inside for decades.

1) Brexit was voted 7 months BEFORE Trump was inaugurated. I'm not sure at all it would have won after the Trump victory, considering the worldwide backslash against xenophobia (which was the reason #1 behind Brexist) and populism your election cycle created.2) Brexit means a weaker a more divided UK. It sure means a more unified EU (there is no possible debate about that). And if you ask me, it will on the long term mean a much, much stronger EU too. The UK has been destroying EU from the inside for decades.

2. Perhaps the EU was destroying the UK rather than the other way around.

1. While I am 100% anti-populism, anyi-xenophobia and pro-immigration, I think that you should not simply dismiss as xenophobia a concern over unfettered immigration by people from a region that largely despises Western civilization. I think that it is understandable to make a distinction between unfettered immigration from Mexico and immigration from Syria.

Trump is against Mexican immigration, and I am 100% opposed to him on that. But I believe that the anti-immigrant sentiments expressed by Brexit are more about resentment over having Brussels telling London how many possible would-be terrorists have to be allowed into the country.

Certainly, not all Muslims are terrorists. I am all for allowing legitimate refugees or people simply seeking a better life for themselves to go anywhere they want to. But basically allowing unfettered and unscreened immigration from places like Syria is dangerous.

And I will say it again: I certainly prefer Trump as president over Hillary Clinton, but I completely despise Trump and I am adamantly opposed to his war on Mexican immigrants and his war on trade. The fact that he is better than Hillary Clinton does not mean he is good - it just means that she would have been much worse

Logged

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.

2. Perhaps the EU was destroying the UK rather than the other way around.

1. While I am 100% anti-populism, anyi-xenophobia and pro-immigration, I think that you should not simply dismiss as xenophobia a concern over unfettered immigration by people from a region that largely despises Western civilization. I think that it is understandable to make a distinction between unfettered immigration from Mexico and immigration from Syria.

Trump is against Mexican immigration, and I am 100% opposed to him on that. But I believe that the anti-immigrant sentiments expressed by Brexit are more about resentment over having Brussels telling London how many possible would-be terrorists have to be allowed into the country.

Certainly, not all Muslims are terrorists. I am all for allowing legitimate refugees or people simply seeking a better life for themselves to go anywhere they want to. But basically allowing unfettered and unscreened immigration from places like Syria is dangerous.

And I will say it again: I certainly prefer Trump as president over Hillary Clinton, but I completely despise Trump and I am adamantly opposed to his war on Mexican immigrants and his war on trade. The fact that he is better than Hillary Clinton does not mean he is good - it just means that she would have been much worse

1 - Maybe, maybe not, but the fact remains that the Trump election created a worldwide backslash against xenophobia and populism, which means that Brexit advocates would have a harder time now to get their (mostly stupid) points across.

2 - Yeah but actually, no. I know you're on the other side of the ocean but if you had closely followed the Brexit thing and knew what the EU actually is you would know that:a) Even the most respected Brexit advocates were forced to make up links between EU and unrelated immigration "problems" to try to show a negative impact of the EU on the UK (remember the UK doesn't belong to the Schengen Space so Brexit will have no direct impact on imigration). The reasons the UK rejected the EU have nothing to do with what the EU actually does.b) Even if you think the UK is better without being in the EU (which is a theory nobody could make a compelling case about so far), the fact is that they were never really in the EU. They were in with very well negociated conditions, which kind of means they had all the advantages of the EU and almost none of the cons. They lost all of it by resetting the negotiations and now have no leverage.